Kerala High Court Dismisses FCI Appeal, Says Emergency Patient Need Not Verify Hospital Empanelment
The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal by the Food Corporation of India (FCI), upholding a single judge's ruling that a retired employee was entitled to reimbursement under the FCI Post-Retirement Medical Scheme for treatment taken at a hospital not empanelled under the scheme.
The bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji observed that a patient facing a grave emergency cannot be forced to run from hospital to hospital to check whether it is empanelled or not. The court relied on the Supreme Court's reasoning that when it comes to saving lives or undertaking lifesaving treatment, the choice of the doctor and the treating protocols are paramount.
The respondent, Govindan P., retired from the FCI as Assistant Grade I and was a member of the Post-Retirement Medical Scheme (PRMS), paying regular subscriptions. He was diagnosed with malignant Papillary Urothelial Carcinoma, requiring urgent surgery. He underwent the procedure at Aster Medicity Hospital, which was not empanelled under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) on which the PRMS is based. The surgery cost Rs 3,64,126. His claim for reimbursement was rejected on the ground that the hospital was not CGHS-empanelled.
He challenged the rejection through a writ petition, which was allowed by the single judge. The FCI then appealed. The bench noted that there was no dispute that his condition was grave and life-threatening. He had initially consulted at Amrita Hospital, where doctors advised surgery but asked him to wait due to a queue of patients. He informed the FCI about this, but the corporation did not find it credible.
The court held that merely because he informed the FCI in a particular manner and later took treatment at Aster as he had requested, it could not be concluded that his condition was not life-threatening or that only elective surgery was required. The bench clarified that the nature of the disease and the urgency of treatment are what matter, not any inconsistency in communications. It added that the respondent may have been scared and wanted a second opinion before surgery, which is normal human behaviour when fear clouds reasoning.
The appeal was dismissed, confirming the single judge's views, holdings and directions. The case was titled Food Corporation of India v. Govindan P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:73842).
Source: Verdictum